Advertisement

Global Changes pp 181-189 | Cite as

Ecological Justice in the Anthropocene: A Proposal

  • Vicente BellverEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment book series (ETHICSSCI, volume 46)

Abstract

The power created by technoscience during the 20th century has turned human beings into global ecological agents. In the face of this challenge, unique in the history of humankind, there are three answers that have been proposed: to accelerate the process of human control over nature (technocratic paradigm); to revert the present situation to a previous stage in which nature recovers its independence from human beings (decrecentism); and to maintain the current system with some measures to solve the side effects (ecocapitalism). The technocratic paradigm does not recognize the value and limits of nature. Decrecentism ignores the duty of using technology to provide more dignified, decent life conditions for humanity. And ecocapitalism is the contemporary version of an economic system which produces growth as well as inequality and environmental degradation, and that it is constantly reinventing itself to remain legitimate and keep its hegemony. Beyond the specific limitations of each of the models above, they all share a problem in their foundation: human beings are only marginally considered. In this chapter, I will offer an alternative to these models based on the UDHR. This Declaration recognizes the dignity of all human beings, the need to create the conditions for all people to exercise their rights, and the existence of duties to the community as a condition to full human development. The Declaration of Stockholm (1972) and of Rio (1992) materialize these synchronic and diachronic ecological justice demands.

Keywords

Ecological justice Human rights Technocratic paradigm Decrecentism, ecocapitalism 

References

  1. Anders G (2010) La obsolescencia del hombre (vol II). Sobre la destrucción de la vida en la época de la tercera revolución industrial. Pretextos, ValenciaGoogle Scholar
  2. Arias Maldonado M (2018) Antropoceno. La política en la era humana. Tecnos, MadridGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnau J (2017) La fuga de Dios. Las ciencias y otras narraciones. Atalanta, GironaGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballesteros J (1989) Postmodernidad: resistencia o decadencia. Tecnos, MadridGoogle Scholar
  5. Ballesteros J (1995) Ecologismo personalista. Tecnos, MadridGoogle Scholar
  6. Ballesteros J (2010) Globalization: from chrematistic rest to humanist wakefulness. In: Ballesteros J, Fernández Ruiz-Gálvez E, Talavera P (eds) Globalization and human rights challenges and answers from a European perspective. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–26 Google Scholar
  7. Ballesteros J (2012) La insostenibilidad de la globalización existente: de la financiarización a la ecologización de la economía y la sociedad. Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas de Elche I(8):15–36Google Scholar
  8. Baskin J (2015) Paradigm dressed as epoch: the ideology of the Anthropocene. Environ Values 24(1):9–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bauman Z (2003) Wasted lives: modernity and its outcasts. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Bellver V (1994) Ecología: de las razones a los derechos. Granada, ComaresGoogle Scholar
  11. Bellver V (1996) El movimiento por la justicia ambiental: entre el ecologismo y los derechos humanos. Anuario de Filosofía del Derecho 13:327–347Google Scholar
  12. Brand U (2012) Green economy—the next oxymoron? No lessons learned from failures of implementing sustainable development. GAIA 21(1):28–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Contreras F (2014) El sentido de la libertad. Historia y vigencia de la idea de ley natural. Stella Maris, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuller S, Lipinska V (2014) The proactionary imperative. A foundation for transhumanism. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Glendon MA (2011) Un mundo nuevo: Eleanor Roosevelt y la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos. FCE, Ciudad de MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  16. Gray J (2004) Heresies: against progress and other illusions. Granta, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Innerarity D (2009) El futuro y sus enemigos. Paidós, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  18. Innerarity D (2012) Justicia climática. Dilemata 9:171–195Google Scholar
  19. Marcos A, Pérez Marcos M (2018) Meditación de la naturaleza humana. BAC, MadridGoogle Scholar
  20. Morris W (2016) La Era del Sucedáneo y otros textos contra la civilización moderna. Pepitas de Calabaza, LogroñoGoogle Scholar
  21. Patocka J (2016) Ensayos heréticos de filosofía de la historia. Encuentro, MadridGoogle Scholar
  22. Sábato E (1973) Hombres y engranajes. Heterodoxia. Alianza, MadridGoogle Scholar
  23. Simon J (1981) The ultimate resource. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  24. Spaargaren G, Mol Arthur (1992) Sociology, environment, and modernity: ecological modernization as a theory of social change. Soc Nat Resour 5:323–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsch L, Gaffney O, Ludwig C (2015) The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. The Anthropocene Rev 2(1):81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taibo C (2011) En defensa del decrecimiento: capitalismo, crisis, barbarie. La Catarata, MadridGoogle Scholar
  27. Waters CN, Zalasiewicz J, Summerhayes C, Barnosky AD, Poirier C, Gałuszka A et al (2016) The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 351(6269).  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad2622

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy of LawUniversitat de ValènciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations